Structured programming says you should only ever have one return statement per function. This is to limit the complexity. Many people such as Martin Fowler argue that it is simpler to write functions with multiple return statements. He presents this argument in the classic refactoring book he wrote. This works well if you follow his other advice and write small functions. I agree with this point of view and only strict structured programming purists adhere to single return statements per function.

作为嵌套if的替代方法，有一种使用do/while(false)在任何地方爆发的方法:

    function()
    {
        HRESULT error = S_OK;

        do
        {
            if(!SUCCEEDED(Operation1()))
            {
                error = OPERATION1FAILED;
                break;
            }

            if(!SUCCEEDED(Operation2()))
            {
                error = OPERATION2FAILED;
                break;
            }

            if(!SUCCEEDED(Operation3()))
            {
                error = OPERATION3FAILED;
                break;
            }
            if(!SUCCEEDED(Operation4()))
            {
                error = OPERATION4FAILED;
                break;
            }
        } while (false);

        return error;
    }

这为您提供了一个出口点，允许您进行其他嵌套操作，但仍然不是真正的深层结构。如果你不喜欢成功，你可以做任何失败的事情。这类事情还允许您在任意两个其他检查之间添加其他代码，而无需重新缩进任何内容。

如果你真的疯了，整个If块也可以宏化。: D

    #define BREAKIFFAILED(x,y) if (!SUCCEEDED((x))) { error = (Y); break; }

    do
    {
        BREAKIFFAILED(Operation1(), OPERATION1FAILED)
        BREAKIFFAILED(Operation2(), OPERATION2FAILED)
        BREAKIFFAILED(Operation3(), OPERATION3FAILED)
        BREAKIFFAILED(Operation4(), OPERATION4FAILED)
    } while (false);

I always avoid multiple return statements. Even in small functions. Small functions can become larger, and tracking the multiple return paths makes it harder (to my small mind) to keep track of what is going on. A single return also makes debugging easier. I've seen people post that the only alternative to multiple return statements is a messy arrow of nested IF statements 10 levels deep. While I certain agree that such coding does occur, it isn't the only option. I wouldn't make the choice between a multiple return statements and a nest of IFs, I'd refactor it so you'd eliminate both. And that is how I code. The following code eliminates both issues and, in my mind, is very easy to read:

public string GetResult()
{
    string rv = null;
    bool okay = false;

    okay = PerformTest(1);

    if (okay)
    {
        okay = PerformTest(2);
    }

    if (okay)
    {
        okay = PerformTest(3);
    }

    if (okay)
    {
        okay = PerformTest(4);
    };

    if (okay)
    {
        okay = PerformTest(5);
    }

    if (okay)
    {
        rv = "All Tests Passed";
    }

    return rv;
}

总是要求单一的返回类型是没有意义的。我认为这更像是一个标志，表明某些东西可能需要简化。有时有多个回报是必要的，但通常你可以通过至少尝试有一个退出点来简化事情。

正如Kent Beck在《实现模式》中讨论保护子句时指出的那样，使一个例程具有单一的入口和出口点……

是为了防止可能的混淆 当你在许多地方跳来跳去 同一例程中的位置。这让 当应用到FORTRAN或 汇编语言程序 有大量的全球数据，甚至 理解哪些语句是 执行是一项艰苦的工作……使用小方法和大部分本地数据，它是不必要的保守。”

我发现用保护子句编写的函数要比一长串嵌套的if then else语句容易理解得多。

对于足够小的函数来说，多个出口点很好——也就是说，可以在一个屏幕长度上完整地查看函数。如果一个冗长的函数同样包含多个出口点，则表明该函数可以进一步分割。

也就是说，除非绝对必要，否则我避免使用多出口功能。在更复杂的函数中，由于一些模糊的行中出现的一些错误返回，我感到了错误的痛苦。